Search results

So we've got 3 FreeBSD 6.1 servers, both running DirectAdmin. All were running PHP 4.4.7. All machines use the same configure.php. We upgraded 2 of the servers to PHP 5.2.5 and all was well. The third server however refuses to build php, but everytime it aborts, it comes up with a different...

We have located the offending website, but we can't yet find the exploit embedded. We did however manage to find the following line in the logfile: 88.242.214.209 - - [23/Sep/2007:03:40:14 +0200] "GET...

We have the same issue on one of our FreeBSD 6.1 servers. The process list shows a process owned by apache, running klm (perl5.8.8) After removing a certain .txt file (the first time it was called but.txt) the load dropped. But I, for the life of me, can't find where it's coming from. The...

I know because the email id is exactly the same as with the previous copies.

It's not the sending bit, it's the receiving bit I am worried about here. His client is not sending anymore testing messages, but he is receiving them.

I would like to bump this thread on account some of our users are experiencing duplicate emails. It's not all the emails, but it's always the same ones. For example, one of our clients has received his outlook test welcome message (that is sent when testing the connection settings in outlook...

We have a problem with bind. When we hit the restart link in the services monitor page, or do /usr/local/etc/rc.d/named restart from the freebsd prompt we get the following errors: /var/run/named/pid cannot be created for it's already there, but then the file gets deleted. The socket...

Every morning after we do a full database dump, mysql dies. But not completely. mysqld_safe keeps running but the mysqld just disappears. So database connections are not accepted but because mysqld_safe still runs, dataskq doesn't notice mysql died. all the backup script does is...

If I nuke and recreate the zone file in the same manner, all is well. The problem just transfers to another domain.

The problem vanished a few days after my last post, but it has reappeared again. Apparently, there's a problem with our nameservers themselves. Here's an excerpt of our zone file as built by Direct Admin (so not all entries are shown): $TTL 14400 @ IN SOA ns1.ermis.nl...

Yes, it does. It's the authoritative nameserver, the master, for all our zones. Yes, it does. For all zones. All zonefiles list both the primary and secondary nameserver in the manner they should. The zone in question keeps changing. After I fix zone a, zone b becomes the problem. And it's...

continuation. dnsreport says the following: FAIL Lame nameservers ERROR: You have one or more lame nameservers. These are nameservers that do NOT answer authoritatively for your domain. This is bad; for example, these nameservers may never get updated. The following nameservers are lame...

I know. It's because I nuked and recreated the zone file. We do not own the netblock, and the one who does doesn't feel like adding reverse pointers.

there's only 2 instances of "slave" appearing: /* zone "domain.com" { type slave; file "s/domain.com.bak"; masters { 192.168.1.1; }; }; zone "0.168.192.in-addr.arpa" { type slave; file "s/0.168.192.in-addr.arpa.bak"...

sorry it's taken me so long to get back on this, but i've been very busy with other things. let me give you an example. last january we created a new domain budgetwebsite.net. the zone file is the standard generated one. nothing was added or removed, and it worked like a charm. this morning...

Not running any command. I keep having to nuke the zone file and start over. And with a zone with 25 entries that gets to be a pain in the you-know-what.

Domains that worked fine suddenly get listed as "non-authoritative". Any way of explaining this? Or better yet, resolving it?

*bump*

So, I have this client, whose username is the same as his domain name, which makes it easier for us to know exactly which user is connected to which domain. His username is 14 charachters long. Now I want to make a database for him. But alas, even tho the database name length is no problem...